To: halfscot who wrote (3802 ) 9/3/1998 9:36:00 PM From: Doughboy Read Replies (2) | Respond to
A point well-taken that Bush did not lie under oath and Clinton did. But I think that any good lawyer, given enough of a long leash could get a person to lie under oath. For example, the Iran-Contra IC basically said that either Bush lied or Cap Weinberger and George Schultz lied, but never sought indictments of any of them. Also, if Democrats were so inclined, they could have filed a lawsuit (a la Larry Klayman) accusing Bush of committing a fraud on the taxpayer by using tax dollars to transport his lover on foreign trips. If you're lucky enough like Klayman and Jones were to get Judges favorably inclined to allow discovery, you put Fitzgerald under oath, get her to perjure herself by saying that she did not have sexual relations with the Vice President. Bush submits an affidavit categorically denying all the allegations. The case is unfortunately tossed out by the judge after he/she realizes this has gotten out of hand, but no matter. Fitzgerald is indicted for perjury. She gives up Bush. An IC is named by a reluctant Attorney General. Bush is charged with perjury. It doesn't take much much to get you there. From now on Presidencies are going to be crapshoots: jilted lovers, angry partisans, or simply crazy people are going to come out of the woodwork suing the President or his administration. A few of those cases are going to leak through, and we're going to put our Presidents under oath. It's going to be bloodbath for the next few years. I can see Newt Gingrich, Bud Shuster, Al Gore, Dan Burton, all going down this road. We all have lies to hide, and if enough people sue you they can eventually get the leeway to ask you about anything under oath. That's the way our legal system works.
